Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
On Monday 10 Aug 2009 02:01:25 John Smith wrote: > --- On Sun, 9/8/09, Ben Kelley wrote: > > A normal road: > > bicycle=unspecified or no > > As I said, I don't cycle much so I'm just trying to think through the > possibilities, if you're looking for a primary purpose maybe that's how to > look at this. > > To play devils advocate here for a second, should highway=* be used at all, > I mean a highway is something cars go on, or something cars used to go on > but they turned it into a pedestrian only area, eg Martin Place in Sydney. > > So the following both seem illogical to me > > highway=cycleway > and > highway=path > > Shouldn't it be: > > path=cycleway > or > path=footway > > etc? > > It's a path not a highway, and this way you are still describing the > primary purpose and this is suggestion is bound to make everyone equally > unhappy :) > And the important one, path=shared. Not to use the highway tag would make it easier for new comers. But then the mapper has to decided is it suitable for cycling from the start. Whereas highway=path may be easiest during the first survey. Yesterday I forgot my log book and in the evening I was trying to workout what was track or path and suitable for bicycles. Evan ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Webpage layout
I hacked in the routing code from http://yournavigation.org/ into the website. This is a php layer between the web interface and gosmore routing engine. At this stage you can only get it to work by doing a place search a start link will appear next to the various links, and then do another search and it then asks gosmore for a route and displays it over the top of the map. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] multiple gpses(sp?)
Due to a recent carputer project, I know map with two gpses. Looking at the traces in josm they are slightly offset from each other (more than the couple of centimeters that separates there antennas). My inclination is to upload both sets of tracks and use the average of the two as the position as if they were from just another set of unknown traces. One is from a Tomtom(Sirf-III) and the other is a Garmin GPS16 reasonable ? cheers -- Franc ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Webpage layout
--- On Mon, 10/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > Well, your search certainly works > *much* faster than the namefinder search on I can cheat with town names, Australia has just under 10,000 localities, although it's still expensive to do a wildcard text search on all highways. > yournavigation.org. I think that they use an old version of > Gosmore though. Last time I tried it it wouldn't route > through an un-named round-about, for example. I downloaded what ever the lated code from SVN is, although gosmore doesn't add surface=unpaved as a lower weighting. > Would you be aiming to, eventually, programme it to set > start/stop points via a click on the map? Basically the only yournavigation allows some pointy clicky routing so I'll see if I can figure out how they did it and add it to the site as well, the only concern I have is how to build that into the site I guess. > thing I still use Google Maps for is route distance > measurement so it would be great to have an OSM-based way to > do this. I try not to use google routing where possible, it's sent me up the garden path way too many times, I refer to it as being 'googled' :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] multiple gpses(sp?)
--- On Mon, 10/8/09, Franc Carter wrote: > reasonable ? Pretty much what I do, when I have multiple GPS' logging. They don't always agree but it gives you more options when they don't. Also just because the antennas are close, don't mean they have gotten the exact same signal from the same sats at the same time, the clock cycles are bound to be different, so when they log will differ too. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] multiple gpses(sp?)
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:44:05 +1000 Franc Carter wrote: > Due to a recent carputer project, I know map with two gpses. Looking > at the traces in josm > they are slightly offset from each other (more than the couple of > centimeters that separates > there antennas). > > My inclination is to upload both sets of tracks and use the average > of the two as the position > as if they were from just another set of unknown traces. One is from a > Tomtom(Sirf-III) and the > other is a Garmin GPS16 I've also had 2 GPS's for the last couple of months and I do exactly what you are suggesting. I also find it very useful when one has a spaz for a couple of minutes and the other one keeps recording. Over a couple of hours of mapping I usually get 2 cases each way that they back each other up. -- =b ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] JOSM patches
I received notification that a couple more of my patches have been included in JOSM/validator plugin. No idea when there will be a new tested/stable version, but it seems there is a new latest version on the JOSM site. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > --- On Sun, 9/8/09, Ben Kelley wrote: > > A normal road: > > bicycle=unspecified or no > > As I said, I don't cycle much so I'm just trying to think through the > possibilities, if you're looking for a primary purpose maybe that's how to > look at this. > > To play devils advocate here for a second, should highway=* be used at all, > I mean a highway is something cars go on, or something cars used to go on > but they turned it into a pedestrian only area, eg Martin Place in Sydney. > > So the following both seem illogical to me > > highway=cycleway > and > highway=path > > Shouldn't it be: > > path=cycleway > or > path=footway > > etc? > > It's a path not a highway, and this way you are still describing the > primary purpose and this is suggestion is bound to make everyone equally > unhappy :) > > Just because I could I asked on the talk list if this proposal together with the path=shared was logically consistent with the German legal problem of carefully designated cycleways and of course all I get so far a rant about "what is wrong with highway=path" suggestions here are far more civilised and can be discussed without fear of death ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Webpage layout
--- On Mon, 10/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > Would you be aiming to, eventually, programme it to set > start/stop points via a click on the map? Basically the only You can now do pointy clicky routing. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
Hi. In NSW a "shared path" means foot=yes, bicycle=yes. The default in NSW for highway=footway (or highway=path) is bicycle=no (same as the OSM conventions). - Ben. 2009/8/10 Evan Sebire > > On Monday 10 Aug 2009 02:01:25 John Smith wrote: > > --- On Sun, 9/8/09, Ben Kelley wrote: > > > A normal road: > > > bicycle=unspecified or no > > > > As I said, I don't cycle much so I'm just trying to think through the > > possibilities, if you're looking for a primary purpose maybe that's how > to > > look at this. > > > > To play devils advocate here for a second, should highway=* be used at > all, > > I mean a highway is something cars go on, or something cars used to go on > > but they turned it into a pedestrian only area, eg Martin Place in > Sydney. > > > > So the following both seem illogical to me > > > > highway=cycleway > > and > > highway=path > > > > Shouldn't it be: > > > > path=cycleway > > or > > path=footway > > > > etc? > > > > It's a path not a highway, and this way you are still describing the > > primary purpose and this is suggestion is bound to make everyone equally > > unhappy :) > > > And the important one, path=shared. Not to use the highway tag would make > it > easier for new comers. But then the mapper has to decided is it suitable > for > cycling from the start. Whereas highway=path may be easiest during the > first > survey. > Yesterday I forgot my log book and in the evening I was trying to workout > what > was track or path and suitable for bicycles. > > Evan > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] For those organising mapping parties...
Hi. FYI there is a forum for Geocaching Australia at http://forum.geocaching.com.au/ - Ben. 2009/8/10 John Smith > > I've had a couple of nibbles from posting an event on Geocaching.com, and > even if they don't turn up they become aware of OSM's existence. I've had no > feed back from the emails I sent to 4wd/bushwalking/computer groups. > > http://coord.info/GC1WAGA > > > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Ben Kelley wrote: > > In NSW a "shared path" means foot=yes, bicycle=yes. The default in NSW for > highway=footway (or highway=path) is bicycle=no (same as the OSM > conventions). No, highway=path does not imply bicycle=no (please see the wiki page). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Ben Kelley wrote: > > In NSW a "shared path" means foot=yes, bicycle=yes. The default in NSW > > for highway=footway (or highway=path) is bicycle=no (same as the OSM > > conventions). > > No, highway=path does not imply bicycle=no (please see the wiki page). > then we have the same problem as the Germans where path is path for feet cycleway is path for bicycles and you cannot assume that it is shared at all we are discussing something whose history seems to be all routes for walking / cycling / car / truck were highway all routes for trains were rail all routes for boats are undefined someone then decides to make path as in highway=path and a duplicate set of tags are made up which cover walking cycling both ways are well documented and both have their fervent believers ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
SUMMARY -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 From: Lauri Kytömaa To: t...@openstreetmap.org Nop wrote: >I think we should step back one step. >The discussion here seems about to fall victim to the same mechanisms Trying to keep my comment general at first to find what are the needs: what should be in the highway tag and what are "local factors". This turned into a stream of thoughts but hopefully coherent enough to breed some more refined thoughts. Things that all agree on: highway=footway: Something, where walking is allowed and possible for someone. (walking might be and is allowed and possible elsewhere, too) highway=cycleway: something, where cycling is allowed and possible (even a German dedicated/signposted cycleway fits that description, i.e. it's not a oneway dependency - not all things tagged highway=cycleway are german signposted cycleways). Pedestrian access undefined - might be country dependent but not supported (yet), so there has about always been a suggestion in the wiki to always tag it with foot=no/yes/designated. highway=path: something not wide enough for four wheeled vehicles OR where motorvehicles are forbidden (unless otherwise indicated by snowmobile/agricultural=designated or similar). Anything with wheelchair=no: unsuitable for wheelchair users or other mobility impaired Anything with highway=footway + foot=no (+ snowmobile=yes) would be silly highway=track implies that it's wide enough for a small motorcar to drive on, even if it's illegal. Things that people don't agree on: 1) Is a highway=cycleway + foot=yes any different from a highway=footway + bicycle=yes 2) Is it significant if there signs read "footway + bicycle allowed" or "combined foot and cycleway" (presumably a difference in the legal "maxspeed" at least in Germany) 3a) is a forest trail any different from a paved sidewalk 3b) is a forest trail any different from an unpaved but built footpath 4) is a constructed way with the traffic sign "no motorvehicles" any different from a constructed way with the traffic sign "combined foot and cycleway" (or with a cycleway-signpost in the UK) User needs: Pedestrian / Cyclist / Horse rider / Urban planner / Statistician / Safety engineer / Accessibility analyst / Crime investigator ... A pedestrian considers mostly the surface and the build quality of the ways _allowed_ to him. A trail in an urban forest (picture 1), formed by repeated use only, is not usable for an average pedestrian, even if a normally fit person in sneakers would go for a walk there sometimes, even if only to walk the dog. A mountain trail is effectively the same, even if more difficult to use. Just about every person, even in (very) high heels would walk down (picture 2) if the way hasn't turned into a puddle of mud. And a western world way constructed for walking usually doesn't deteriorate that much. Then there's the third variant in-between (3), which some would use and other's wouldn't. 1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:06072009(045).jpg 2) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Path-motorcarnohorseno.jpg 3) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Path-footyes.jpg Some cyclist disregard access rights and consider the surface and hills only, while others would want to drive on dedicated cycleways only; on those where only cyclists are allowed. Most common cyclist probably don't care if there are pedestrians involved, they just wan't to use legal and properly built ways and avoid driving amongst the cars. Horse riding is something to think about, too. For signposted bridleways it's quite unambiguous, even if a British bridleway allows pedestrians and cyclists, too, whereas the German (and Finnish) legally signposted bridleways allow neither. But on a built way signposted as "no motor vehicles" horse riding might be legal, but if it's signposted as a footway, cycleway or the "combined foot and cycleway" (picture 4), horse riding is not allowed. 4) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Path-lighttraffic.jpg On the forest trails (picture 1 again) horse riding might again be legal or private/permissive. If the picture 2 didn't have the "no horses" sign, I'd think around here that it's legal to ride a horse there. City planners possibly need to consider if the way is signposted for combined use or with a "no motor vehicles" - first ones the city might have to keep in good walking condition to avoid expenses when someone breaks his bike because of the unfixed potholes but the latter ways don't possibly carry such limitations. On the other hand that doesn't usually interest the cyclists at all even if it is so. This can and does have implications when dedicing where to build the light traffic ways in the next suburb to be built - or where to add new cycleways to improve the percentage of cycling commuters. Statisticians and safety engineers could want to know whether (un)segregated sh
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
Umm, not the case at all. Highway= comes from the old english use, where highway means "way/path/track you use to get somewhere". These days we assume roads and cars, but that's not the way it was originally designed. Stephen 2009/8/10 John Smith : > To play devils advocate here for a second, should highway=* be used at all, I > mean a highway is something cars go on, or something cars used to go on but > they turned it into a pedestrian only area, eg Martin Place in Sydney. > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Liz wrote: > SUMMARY > > Trying to keep my comment general at first to find what are the needs: > what should be in the highway tag and what are "local factors". This > turned into a stream of thoughts but hopefully coherent enough to > breed some more refined thoughts. Nice work Liz, thought I might comment on just a few things you raised. > Things that all agree on: > > highway=footway: > Something, where walking is allowed and possible for someone. > (walking might be and is allowed and possible elsewhere, too) > > highway=cycleway: > something, where cycling is allowed and possible > (even a German dedicated/signposted cycleway fits that description, > i.e. it's not a oneway dependency - not all things tagged > highway=cycleway are german signposted cycleways). Pedestrian access > undefined - might be country dependent but not supported (yet), so > there has about always been a suggestion in the wiki to always tag it > with foot=no/yes/designated. > > highway=path: > something not wide enough for four wheeled vehicles OR where > motorvehicles are forbidden (unless otherwise indicated by > snowmobile/agricultural=designated or similar). > > Anything with > wheelchair=no: unsuitable for wheelchair users or other mobility > impaired > highway=track > implies that it's wide enough for a small motorcar to drive on, > even if it's illegal. I would love to see the wiki updated with these definitions. IMHO the wiki is precisely the place to document the "things that all agree on". > Things that people don't agree on: > > 1) Is a highway=cycleway + foot=yes any different from a > highway=footway + bicycle=yes This problem arises because "cycleway" and "footway" have vague implications. These implications either need to be agreed upon and precisely documented, or the tags should be used with additional tags to clarify the implications, or they should be deprecated. > 4) is a constructed way with the traffic sign "no motorvehicles" any > different from a constructed way with the traffic sign "combined foot > and cycleway" (or with a cycleway-signpost in the UK) designated=* and no=* should be sufficient, right? > Conclusion: > > Some users care most about whether it's a built way or not, others want > to know what the sign was (are there likely users of other transport > methods) and some care only "Am I allowed or not?" What do you mean by "built way"? surface=*? The sign and/or legality should be covered by designated=* and no=*, right? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Stephen Hope wrote: > Umm, not the case at all. Highway= comes from the old english use, > where highway means "way/path/track you use to get somewhere". highways are in contrast to byways where the highway is the main road but discussing the etymology isn't going to help OSM sort out why and how to tag > These > days we assume roads and cars, but that's not the way it was > originally designed. > > Stephen > > 2009/8/10 John Smith : > > To play devils advocate here for a second, should highway=* be used at > > all, I mean a highway is something cars go on, or something cars used to > > go on but they turned it into a pedestrian only area, eg Martin Place in > > Sydney. subdividing non-car ways off from highway would help routing software. My Garmin thing wanted me to use a walking / cycle track alongside Lake Burley Griffin once I'd find it useful to change from highway=* with access rights marked if it was to improve routing but the current argument is like an argument for the sake of one ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: > Nice work Liz, thought I might comment on just a few things you raised. not my work Roy!! -- BOFH excuse #297: Too many interrupts ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
--- On Mon, 10/8/09, Liz wrote: > highways are in contrast to byways > where the highway is the main road > but discussing the etymology isn't going to help OSM sort > out why and how to > tag Words change, sometimes into the complete opposite of their original meaning, I don't think we should be entirely governed by what words meant 1000 years ago. > subdividing non-car ways off from highway would help > routing software. > My Garmin thing wanted me to use a walking / cycle track > alongside Lake Burley > Griffin once That isn't an issue with the current tagging, it's an issue with the pre-processing of the data into garmin format, after all you don't load OSM data directly onto your garmin. The pre-processor should be fixed, not change tagging because you think it might fix things with the pre-processor. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
--- On Mon, 10/8/09, Liz wrote: > then we have the same problem as the Germans > where path is path for feet > cycleway is path for bicycles > and you cannot assume that it is shared at all and you cannot assume it isn't shared either, people may not tag all uses because they think it is implied :) > someone then decides to make path > as in highway=path > and a duplicate set of tags are made up > which cover walking cycling If the idea was to split cycleway/footway from highway why did they replace it with yet another highway tag? Seems strange/silly to me. > both ways are well documented And people abused the system to get their views forced upon us all. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Webpage layout
Very nice :). Is it hard to calculate a route distance and display that? - Original Message - From: John Smith Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 2:04 am Subject: Re: [talk-au] Webpage layout To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > --- On Mon, 10/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au > wrote: > > > Would you be aiming to, eventually, programme it to set > > start/stop points via a click on the map? Basically the only > > You can now do pointy clicky routing. > > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Webpage layout
--- On Mon, 10/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > Is it hard to calculate a route distance and display that? route distance is known, displaying it in a "nice" way is another matter, are you or anyone else able to do a mock up design on how you think this could be displayed? Also the routing directions could be shown also, but again it's a layout issue. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Updating the Australian Tagging Guidelines
The current use of highway=residential/highway=unclassified is almost on par with what the germans use it for, it is the lowest road used for the interconnecting grid, residential is usually the lowest in towns/cities and track is the lowest everywhere. Can someone suggest changes to the tagging guidelines to make this clear? I'm not saying you shouldn't use residential if you think it's residential, but if the road is wider and more used than residential, but less than tertiary this seems to be what happens else where and if we leave things as is on the wiki people are tagging rural roads as residential. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Webpage layout
Under the search box seems like a logical place, even if the Events section needs to be moved down. Would it be hard to have the search results come up then once a route is calculated have the results disappear and have the distance/directions shown there? I think this link will work, it's an example of what I use gmaps routing for. Basically I've manually plotted out a cycle route (in this case for road tracing, so there's 3 roads which aren't on OSM) and it's given me a distance. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Casino+St&daddr=Caniaba+Rd+to:Bruxner+Hwy+to:Caniaba+Rd+to:Bruxner+Hwy+to:Gores+Rd+to:Naughtons+Gap+Rd+to:-28.808189,153.260593&hl=en&geocode=FdprSP4dPqAiCQ%3BFeUSSP4dU8UhCQ%3BFQhJR_4dgj4iCQ%3BFdTWR_4du3shCQ%3BFXZtR_4dVBUhCQ%3BFecpSP4d8_ogCQ%3BFcWFSP4dzDcgCQ%3B&mra=mi&mrcr=3&mrsp=7&sz=12&via=1,3,5&sll=-28.844974,153.189583&sspn=0.213215,0.307961&ie=UTF8&ll=-28.829035,153.223572&spn=0.213248,0.307961&z=12 Obviously there's a lot of work to make something that complex, so it's just an idea to aim for. Personally I don't care for routing information in any situation, only ever distance measurements so I know that it's possible to get home before sunset. No doubt that's a fairly narrow view which isn't shared with the bulk of the users who would just want directions. -Brent - Original Message - From: John Smith Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 11:21 am Subject: Re: [talk-au] Webpage layout To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au > > --- On Mon, 10/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au > wrote: > > > Is it hard to calculate a route distance and display that? > > route distance is known, displaying it in a "nice" way is > another matter, are you or anyone else able to do a mock up > design on how you think this could be displayed? > > Also the routing directions could be shown also, but again it's > a layout issue. > > > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Updating the Australian Tagging Guidelines
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > The current use of highway=residential/highway=unclassified is almost on > par with what the germans use it for, it is the lowest road used for the > interconnecting grid, residential is usually the lowest in towns/cities and > track is the lowest everywhere. > > Can someone suggest changes to the tagging guidelines to make this clear? > > I'm not saying you shouldn't use residential if you think it's residential, > but if the road is wider and more used than residential, but less than > tertiary this seems to be what happens else where and if we leave things as > is on the wiki people are tagging rural roads as residential. > > > What it says on the wiki under 'stralya for rural is unclassified for "other named rural roads" and for urban "other streets, not generally through roads" seems clear enough to me but it may not be clear enough to others :-( ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Webpage layout
--- On Mon, 10/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > Under the search box seems like a > logical place, even if the Events section needs to be moved > down. Would it be hard to have the search results come up > then once a route is calculated have the results disappear > and have the distance/directions shown there? I was hoping to make the events prominent, but I guess if they're already doing routing they've already seen them. > Obviously there's a lot of work to make something that > complex, so it's just an idea to aim for. Personally I > don't care for routing information in any situation, > only ever distance measurements so I know that it's > possible to get home before sunset. No doubt that's a > fairly narrow view which isn't shared with the bulk of > the users who would just want directions. I may not be able to do it all in the same way that google does, but I think gosmore handles via routing, so if I don't disable the to button, and track additional points it should work similar to google, but they obviously spent a lot more time/money on the problem. It's probably important to note here that I'm not trying to compete with google, that isn't something I'd ever win. I'm trying to highlight benefits that OSM has over google, like all the POIs, now that I've figured out a lot of the layer stuff doing the routing it should be possible to do a POI layer that is shown when people do a POI search. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Webpage layout
Yeah, completely understand your stance on it mate. In the end I'd probably keep using Google anyway because most of my route planning is on unmapped roads. If they're mapped chances are they're too busy for a cyclist or I've already been there :p. Just throwing ideas around as usual. - Original Message - From: John Smith Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 11:57 am Subject: Re: [talk-au] Webpage layout To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au > > --- On Mon, 10/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au > wrote: > > > Under the search box seems like a > > logical place, even if the Events section needs to be moved > > down. Would it be hard to have the search results come up > > then once a route is calculated have the results disappear > > and have the distance/directions shown there? > > I was hoping to make the events prominent, but I guess if > they're already doing routing they've already seen them. > > > Obviously there's a lot of work to make something that > > complex, so it's just an idea to aim for. Personally I > > don't care for routing information in any situation, > > only ever distance measurements so I know that it's > > possible to get home before sunset. No doubt that's a > > fairly narrow view which isn't shared with the bulk of > > the users who would just want directions. > > I may not be able to do it all in the same way that google does, > but I think gosmore handles via routing, so if I don't disable > the to button, and track additional points it should work > similar to google, but they obviously spent a lot more > time/money on the problem. > > It's probably important to note here that I'm not trying to > compete with google, that isn't something I'd ever win. > > I'm trying to highlight benefits that OSM has over google, like > all the POIs, now that I've figured out a lot of the layer stuff > doing the routing it should be possible to do a POI layer that > is shown when people do a POI search. > > > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] OSM representation in Australia
Just to let everyone know what's happening, the guy I work for has become interested in both helping the community and to get into selling mapping services. He also has numerous business connections. There has already been some unofficial talks with a company that makes phone handsets with GPS/3G and they seem willing to donate quite a number of these for some kind of schools/education programme. The idea is the phones would be lent out on a per month basis, along with an education pack describing all the ways schools can get involved in various activities, hopefully it can be made fun and exciting. :) For this to happen there needs to be some kind of official presence for these companies to deal with, if they donate goods it has to be owned by some entity, as the company offering phones won't want to deal with schools directly. Most government departments don't like dealing with individuals so there needs to be an official group behind this. I don't know if starting a local chapter would be the best solution, but on the other hand things might be made more difficult, if things default to OSMF in the UK. However before any of this can occur I really need to know if people have a genuine concern with setting up a local chapter or not. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Updating the Australian Tagging Guidelines
--- On Mon, 10/8/09, Liz wrote: > seems clear enough to me > > but it may not be clear enough to others :-( The best way to approach this would be to try explaining it to someone not familiar with OSM and see if they come to the same conclusion. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OSM representation in Australia
Perhaps I should clarify a few points, this could be seen in the same light as any local sports or scouting club, the club focuses on the main activity and the legal entity is a means to an end, or in their cases a way to get public liability insurance. Also we can probably borrow an accountant to deal with any/all paper work. If anything I'm trying to figure out the easiest way to achieve an outcome, the outcome needs a legal entity of some sort, a local entity would be one way, another is to go via OSMF although I don't know how much or how willing they would be either. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Cullerin Wind Farm (NSW)
Any one else managed to document one of these? http://osm.org/go/uNwf9zFM-- It took a full two hour walk from where I parked to visit each tower and get back. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OSM representation in Australia
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > Perhaps I should clarify a few points, this could be seen in the same light > as any local sports or scouting club, the club focuses on the main activity > and the legal entity is a means to an end, or in their cases a way to get > public liability insurance. > > Also we can probably borrow an accountant to deal with any/all paper work. > > If anything I'm trying to figure out the easiest way to achieve an outcome, > the outcome needs a legal entity of some sort, a local entity would be one > way, another is to go via OSMF although I don't know how much or how > willing they would be either. > > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au we would be better with a local entity its not easy for a company to deal with something international ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Webpage layout
--- On Mon, 10/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > Yeah, completely understand your > stance on it mate. In the end I'd probably keep using > Google anyway because most of my route planning is on > unmapped roads. If they're mapped chances are > they're too busy for a cyclist or I've already been > there :p. I mostly use google to figure out what needs to be mapped, I'm going to be making a lot less use of it for general routing. Things like this site: http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=10&lat=-28.78933&lon=153.44879&layers=B0TF Are very useful for figuring out what needs to be done. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cullerin Wind Farm (NSW)
--- On Tue, 11/8/09, j...@talk21.com wrote: > It took a full two hour walk from where I parked to visit > each tower and get back. Wow, that's dedication :) Nice work on it too, but most wind farms I've seen were on private property, except a lone one near a majorish road in Newcastle, so not sure if many/most of these would be easily surveyed. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
